According to Release Group / Type - MusicBrainz that seems correct as compilation as it is written that not only pre-recorded music constitutes a compilation but also newly made recordings by different artists that create an album with a common theme. Or am I interpreting it the wrong way?
3 Likes
All the examples of common themes are mostly the kind of pre-existing recording compilations, though (Songs for Lovers, Hits of 1998, Songs From the Movies).
And maybe remix for the last one (Café del Mar) (I don’t know this).
5 Likes
I (wrongly) interpreted it that way too, that’s why this discussion started 
It may change or be clearer, more examples of what is and what isn’t a compilation will help once that is decided
I just notice the artist Various Artists has the disambiguation (add compilations to this artist)
This sounds wrong to me, shouldn’t it be something in the line of: (use for releases with no clear release artist, and featuring different track artists)?
As not every VA release is a compilation, and not every compilation is a VA release.
2 Likes
The point is that there are other artists called “Various Artists” (at least four) that are just normal artists with a dumb-funny name, rather than the actual “Various Artists” artist. That’s why that disambiguation is there, just as a quick way of indicating “this is the various-artists Various Artists”. We could change it a bit, but it should be something short and to the point, which your suggestion isn’t.
3 Likes
Yes, my suggestion is indeed very long for a disambiguation…, almost a complete guide. It’s hard to come up with something short that doesn’t pose a similar problem as the existing one.
I wonder, is there a reason this is not in the DB as [various] or [various artists], similar to [no artist], [unknown artist], [traditional], etc.?
3 Likes
That’s been suggested and the main reason I haven’t changed it so far is that it would cause so many changes in one go that it might break stuff 
Such as our search server indexes and other similar things. Might need to go for it at some point though. Admittedly, that might make it even more likely for inattentive users to select one of the wrong Various Artists 
8 Likes
2 Likes
I was revisiting this. I think this is never going to be 100% straightforward, but I thought I’d add this to Release Group/Type:
In general, a compilation is expected to mostly contain previously released music. When existing but previously unreleased music is compiled in an equivalent way, the release can be considered as a compilation as well: for example, a compilation of unpublished rarities and alternate takes for an artist or a compilation sampler for a label’s future music releases. A release of newly commissioned music, even if on a specific theme and by different artists, should not generally be considered a compilation.
14 Likes
Superb! 
Thank you very much!
3 Likes
I (and a lot of editors from my experience) interpreted the previous guideline “a various artists song collection” to mean most if not all releases credited to Various Artists. I don’t oppose this change, but I think it would necessitate an announcement and call to cleanup of tons of release groups. It’s also quite vague stated, there are tons of albums that are 100% new tracks but either listed as compilations in promo text or in some cases, even has ‘compilation’ in the album title.
Personal preference would be not to count these under the compilation type (exception should be made for a release of new tracks but credited to a selector and not various artists, should still be compilation imo). But the current guideline is better written because it feels more explicitly stated.
Here’s the text I’d personally like instead:
A release of newly commissioned music, even if on a specific theme and by different artists, should not be considered a compilation, even if described as such. An exception is if the release artist is not Various Artists, but rather credited to compiler(s)/selector(s), then the release group should have the compilation attribute, even if it consists of previously unreleased music, to avoid confusion in the artist discography.”
Do you have examples of this kind? To understand. 
I always find it confusing when MB Guidelines redefine terms from what is generally accepted in music release and collecting. Changing a dictionary definition. If an artist calls something a “compilation”, then that term should stick. If I read how this guideline is now to be interpreted then a compilation album of new tracks made for a charity release will not be a compilation any more.
4 Likes
I just added this release, incidentally.
Correct. This is quite a radical change but one that I personally prefer, since it allows the database to make a distinction. It allows various artists releases to be easily sorted to ones that contain previously released recordings and one that offer material made specifically for that release. Of course they’re considered “compilations” by a broader definition, but it’s not useful to have two completely different types of releases in terms of how they’re produced, one of which is way more common, under the same term.
I do think it should be stressed that this is a radical change, and that it’s not a simple clarification but indeed a change from the previous accepted definition.
It is explicitly meant to be a clarification and not a change from the previous definition, and we have always ignored what others term as “compilation” - which is why the “compilation” iTunes tag that just basically means “Various Artists” was always weirdly clashing with MusicBrainz types (and why Picard sees that as an entirely separate thing and sets it when a release is VA).
It never was meant to have been, which shows why this needs clarification.
Well, it’s a radical change, since the labeling these releases as compilation has been done consistently. This is one of the most well known charity series of albums, being released over 30 years and that have raised a total of 10 million dollars. It’s all listed as compilations, despite being new material, with one release group exception.
If it was never directly stated, and the actual wording (“various artist song collection”) and how it was interpreted in the majority of cases gives the opposite, it’s a change. Adding an exception that wasn’t there before isn’t a clarification, it’s a change. And it will require heavy editing work to be implemented, and editors will have to be informed of the change.
This isn’t just a clarification, it’s clearly a guideline change (one that I’m in favor of). But it’s not possible to know that some various artists releases shouldn’t have this release group type given how the guideline was written. That’s why the majority of releases that fit this exception are currently set to compilations.
1 Like
It is also a very confusing change when it goes against how the normal dictionary definition of Compilation works.
It seems to cause more confusion than it needs to. I don’t see what is different between a “Curated by Neel” selection of new tracks, or a selection of new tracks released by a label on a sample album. Why is Neel’s collection of tracks a Compilation, but something released by a label in the same way not a Compilation?
With the Red Hot example even their own About page call them Compilation Albums. From the Redhot about page
1 Like
To not show up in the same discography section with releases where Neel’s role is not that of a curator, but a performing artist. This is obviously not a problem if the artist is Various Artists.
Abandoning the dictionary definition makes sense here, since it refers to two types of releases that are very distinct in its function—providing existing tracks in a convenient package and providing new tracks from multiple artists. Adding another release group type or leaving it blank for these cases is a solution, but it clearly makes sense to not group these two together if it leads to a more coherent discography rather compliance than normal usage.
My issue is that the proposed change is a redefinition (usage of compilation in this way is way common), and it should not be treated as a trivial change. Even if I agree with it, which I do, it needs to be treated as an actual change and not as a minor clarification update.